Handgun Ban Upheld By Federal Appeals Court

CHICAGO (AP) -- A federal appeals court on Tuesday upheld ordinances barring the ownership of handguns in most cases in Chicago and suburban Oak Park, handing a sharp defeat to the National Rifle Association.

The Second Amendment to the Constitution guaranteeing the right to bear arms is not an adequate basis for lawsuits attacking local gun ordinances, the three-judge panel of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled.

Chicago officials immediately praised the decision affirming a ruling in December by U.S. District Judge Milton I. Shadur.

"We are pleased with this decision because it means that we can continue to enforce our gun ordinance," said city law department spokeswoman Jennifer Hoyle.

Hoyle said she understood the NRA intended to appeal the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. NRA spokeswoman Rachel Parsons referred questions to attorney William Howard, who did not immediately return voicemails.

The NRA argued that the Second Amendment makes such local ordinances unconstitutional.

Their lawsuit came in the wake of a Supreme Court decision that the Second Amendment entitles people to keep handguns at home for self protection.

The appeals court upheld Shadur's dismissal of the suit on the ground that the Supreme Court's decision dealt with a District of Columbia case - which unlike Chicago and Oak Park is a federal jurisdiction.

Story continues below

advertisement

The three-judge appeals panel held that the Second Amendment may not be used to overturn local gun ordinances.

Judge Frank Easterbrook said in his nine-page opinion that "the Constitution establishes a federal republic where local differences are to be cherished as elements of liberty rather than extirpated in order to produce a single, nationally applicable rule."

"Federalism is an older and more deeply rooted tradition than is a right to carry any particular kind of weapon," Easterbrook wrote.

The opinion was signed by Judges William Bauer and Richard Posner.

A panel of the New York-based 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that included Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor reached a similar conclusion about the reach of the Second Amendment in a case from New York over a state law banning the possession of chuka sticks - a weapon composed of two sticks joined at the ends by a rope or chain.

A panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, however, ruled that the Second Amendment does apply to the states. The court is considering whether to take another look at a dispute between the San Francisco Bay area's Alameda County and gun show promoters.

-ASSOCIATED PRESS

Comments

[OdinsEye]

Great news. Now the USSC will have to decide the issue of incorporation. This could turn into a major blow against the gun controllers.

[cbrtxus]

Actually, I assumed that incorporation is the whole idea behind this push by the National Rifle Association (NRA). Incorporation means applying portions of the United States Bill of Rights (USBOR) to the states. Originally, the USBOR only applied to the federal government.

The NRA wanted to lose this case so that it could be taken to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). The SCOTUS has already ruled against a similar weapons ban in Washington D.C. The SCOTUS is unlikely to rule that the people in Chicago don't have the same constitutional rights as the people in Washington DC. I think that NRA has a good strategy. This SCOTUS has shown a willingness to defend the second amendment so this is the best time to push for incorporation. Any new Obama appointments to the SCOTUS are almost certainly going to be opposed to the right of citizens to keep and bear arms.

Chicago and Washington DC have a problem. If their citizens have the same right to keep and bear arms that most other citizens in the United States have and violent crime doesn't immediately climb, then the foolishness of attempting to address violent crime by restricting the right of non-criminals to defend themselves will be demonstrated as it has been almost everywhere else.

[OdinsEye]

I do not know that the NRA wanted to lose at the appellate level, but it does give them a great opportunity at the USSC level to take the ruling of the 9th Circuit and expand on its limited incorporation decision the other week.

I doubt very much that it will make its way to the USSC before Souter retires.

[CraigR]

I'm still waiting for the first "well-regulated militia" to make its existence known.

[Waltfl]

I can make the existence of a people know, whose right to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

[OdinsEye]

You are the militia.

[ChiGuy]

Regulated in what way?
The NRA continuously fights against ANY measures intended to make Americans safe.

Example: Mandatory training and periodic testing of proficiency as a prerequisite for a license to own and operate firearms.

We go through a tougher process to have the privilege of driving a car, than to own a device designed for one thing: Ending life.

[Thirdpower]

Now that two appelate courts contradict eachother, this will be fasttracked to SCOTUS. By the 7ths arguments, states should be able to selectively re-introduce slavery.

[CraigR]

Unfortunately, eventually Roberts, Scalia, Alito, Thomas and Kennedy will overturn it.

[meede]

One of the best things I've heard coming out of Chicago

[seekeronos]

"--- One of the best things I've heard coming out of Chicago ----"

Indeed. Especially if you are a drug dealer, or an armed rapist, or other miscreant who doesn't give a fig about the law.

Now he can take his (illegal) weapon and prey upon the defenseless, yet law abiding citizens of Chicago.

Yet another bright "progressive" move toward more government control and authoritarianism - where the liberty teeth of the people are pulled, as they are gently drugged into a stupor by Leftist lies.

[wdw505]

well said

[Mark0]

Are you claiming that "a drug dealer, or an armed rapist, or other miscreant who doesn't give a fig about the law"

would somehow be stopped from "tak[ing] his (illegal) weapon and prey[ing] upon the defenseless, yet law abiding citizens of Chicago" by a ban that he doesn't give a fig about?

How poignant.